New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit

Article: ARM Goes 64-bit
By: EduardoS (no.delete@this.spam.com), November 23, 2012 10:09 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on November 21, 2012 7:44 am wrote:
> Install-time compilation would be far better than using a JIT indeed. But you still may not have
> enough memory/performance for link-time whole program optimization with profile feedback.

On desktops the time consuming compilation is done at background, in phones it can be done during recharge time, no?

Oh, and with the most up to date and relevant profile feedback.

> Rubbish. GC is memory inefficient by definition, so claiming it is better for locality is just wishful
> thinking. Compacting GC's typically need 2-3 times more memory than a non-compacting GC, so are worse on
> average.

Your claims don't hold true...

Every allocator use more memory than strictly necessary (later about C++), GC does the job of moving data toghether from time to time wich negates fragmentation.

> Also the much higher memory allocation rate and resulting collections are bad for locality.

Allocations are cheap, collecting short lived objects is cheap too.

> Concurrent GC has even larger overheads. It stops threads for shorter periods but stops them more often, so
> takes far longer overall. And then we haven't considered the far higher overheads on the generated code.

I don't know about what GC you are talking...

The concurrent GC I have in mind originated from the non-concurrent GC, the most recent generation collections still blocking wich the full GC running in background until it needs blocking, so there is the same numbers of full stops but the most time consuming stop is shorter.

Yes, it uses more resources, but on s single-threaded application such resources does exist, and wouldn't be used in another way.

> No, no space is wasted, unlike GC which requires descriptors for every object.

Descriptors aren't strictly necessary and can be encoded in the vtable pointer, the reason many VMs doesn't omit the descriptor is because it is not that expensive.

But C++ allocators waste space, for example, on Windows, before LFH deallocated objects left holes in the heap, some wich were left unused for lack of a suitable object, a problem called "fragmentation" and it is accumalative, the longer the app runs the worse it gets, see the wasted space? Locality isn't good either, objects go were there is space, not near related objects.

LFH allocates 64k for every object size rounded to lowest higher power of 2, wich, by definition waste the space between that power of 2 and the actual object size, and, if there is not enough objects of a given size to fill the segment, it also waste the segment unused space. Locality suffers as well since objects are placed by it's size and related objects may end very far from each other.

> Instructions that can trap are bad. That's why you see modern FPUs
> implement IEEE so you never need traps, not even for denormals.

Ok, instructions that may trap, loads, store, branches and integer division...

On a normal applications it is about half the instructions, the reason modern FPU don't need to trap is mostly because having to handle an exception in normal flow is a pain in the access, exceptions are supposed to be exceptions, not part of normal flow.

> Since when is a memory access cheap? Every unnecesary instruction has a cost.

Sure it have a cost, a non-blocking load will consume one decoder, one port for one cycle and one slot in a modern processor, wich will likely pass without being noticed, so it is a small cost, that's why I called it cheap.

> The barriers and other checks for concurrent GC or multithreaded access
> to fields are not exactly zero-cost and block many optimizations.

Maybe that's why the "volatile" keyword exists?

Anyway, MS doesn't implement the weak memory model that the C# or C++ specs allow, many applications wouldn't work if they did.

> By your logic, C++ would be much slower than C as C++ is quite new. Clearly that's not the case - and the
> simple reason is that much of what goes on inside is unrelated to the source language or the target.

No, that's not my logic, reread my statement.

> Not sure what your point is here. Yes VC++ does extremely well as it is optimized
> to do well on the millions of lines of code that people actually write (such as Windows
> and its apps) - as opposed to showing huge gains on a few small benchmarks.

.Net code generation isn't all that different from VC++.

Did you read when I wrote VC++ is conservative?

> Wrong. Exceptions can only happen explicitly with throw in C++.

Or when the program hits an undefined behaviour...

And there are quite a few undefined behaviours in C++ spec.

BTW, I am not limiting myself to C++ exceptions, any hardware exception is valid, VMs may handle exceptions by traping the hardware exceptions, if there is no try...catch block no need to care about order or barries, the program will crash anyway... Like it is done in C++.

> The problem is not just the ordering, but the fact that more operations can cause exceptions. That alone
> creates a lot of overhead as you need to model flows from every possible exception to all possible exception
> handlers. Local variable values need to be preserved for example, severely limiting optimizations.

If there is a registered handler...

And the implementation can, for example, let the heavy lifting of restoring state for the exception handler, giving more freedom for optimizations in the normal flow.

> The performance cost is high if you happen to use arrays a lot.

And if the optimizer fails to remove the redundant checks.
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitDavid Kanter08/14/12 12:04 AM
  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitnone08/14/12 12:44 AM
    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitDavid Kanter08/14/12 01:04 AM
    MIPS MT-ASEPaul A. Clayton08/14/12 09:01 AM
      MONITOR/MWAITEduardoS08/14/12 10:08 AM
        MWAIT not specifically MTPaul A. Clayton08/14/12 10:36 AM
          MWAIT not specifically MTEduardoS08/15/12 03:16 PM
        MONITOR/MWAITanonymou508/14/12 11:07 AM
          MONITOR/MWAITEduardoS08/15/12 03:20 PM
      MIPS MT-ASErwessel08/14/12 10:14 AM
  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitSHK08/14/12 02:01 AM
  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitanon08/14/12 02:37 AM
    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitRichard Cownie08/14/12 03:57 AM
      New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitanon08/14/12 04:29 AM
      New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitnone08/14/12 04:44 AM
        New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitanon08/14/12 05:28 AM
          New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitanon08/14/12 05:32 AM
            New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS08/14/12 06:06 AM
          New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitnone08/14/12 05:40 AM
            AArch64 select better than cmovPaul A. Clayton08/14/12 06:08 AM
            New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitanon08/14/12 06:12 AM
              New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitnone08/14/12 06:25 AM
                Predicated ld/store are usefulPaul A. Clayton08/14/12 06:48 AM
                  Predicated ld/store are usefulnone08/14/12 06:56 AM
                    Predicated ld/store are usefulanon08/14/12 07:07 AM
                    Predicated stores might not be that badPaul A. Clayton08/14/12 07:27 AM
                      Predicated stores might not be that badDavid Kanter08/15/12 01:14 AM
                        Predicated stores might not be that badMichael S08/15/12 11:41 AM
                        Predicated stores might not be that badR Byron08/17/12 04:09 AM
                New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitanon08/14/12 06:54 AM
                  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitnone08/14/12 07:04 AM
                    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitanon08/14/12 07:43 AM
          New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS08/14/12 06:07 AM
            New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitanon08/14/12 06:20 AM
              New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitnone08/14/12 06:29 AM
                New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitanon08/14/12 07:00 AM
            New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitMichael S08/14/12 03:43 PM
        New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitRichard Cownie08/14/12 06:53 AM
          OT: Conrad's "Youth"Richard Cownie08/14/12 07:20 AM
      New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS08/14/12 06:04 AM
        New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitmpx08/14/12 08:59 AM
          New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitAntti-Ville Tuunainen08/14/12 09:16 AM
        New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitanonymou508/14/12 11:03 AM
          New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitname9911/17/12 03:31 PM
            Microarchitecting a counter registerPaul A. Clayton11/17/12 07:37 PM
    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitbakaneko08/14/12 04:21 AM
      New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitname9911/17/12 03:40 PM
        New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS11/17/12 04:52 PM
        New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitDoug S11/17/12 05:48 PM
        New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitbakaneko11/18/12 05:40 PM
          New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitWilco11/19/12 07:59 AM
            New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS11/19/12 08:23 AM
              New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitWilco11/19/12 09:31 AM
                Downloading µarch-specific binaries?Paul A. Clayton11/19/12 11:21 AM
                New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS11/19/12 11:41 AM
                  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitWilco11/21/12 07:44 AM
                    JIT vs. static compilation (Was: New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit)VMguy11/22/12 03:21 AM
                      JIT vs. static compilation (Was: New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit)David Kanter11/22/12 12:12 PM
                        JIT vs. static compilation (Was: New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit)Gabriele Svelto11/23/12 03:50 AM
                    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS11/23/12 10:09 AM
                      New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEBFE11/26/12 01:24 AM
                        New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitGabriele Svelto11/26/12 03:33 AM
                          New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEBFE11/27/12 11:17 PM
                            New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitGabriele Svelto11/28/12 02:32 AM
                        New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS11/26/12 12:16 PM
                          New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEBFE11/28/12 12:33 AM
                            New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS11/28/12 05:53 AM
                              New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitMichael S11/28/12 06:15 AM
                                New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS11/28/12 07:33 AM
                                  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitMichael S11/28/12 09:16 AM
                                    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS11/28/12 09:53 AM
                                    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEugene Nalimov11/28/12 05:58 PM
                                      Amazing!EduardoS11/28/12 07:25 PM
                                        Amazing! (non-italic response)EduardoS11/28/12 07:25 PM
                                        Amazing!EBFE11/28/12 08:20 PM
                                          Undefined behaviour doubles downEduardoS11/28/12 09:10 PM
                              New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEBFE11/28/12 07:54 PM
                                New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitEduardoS11/28/12 09:21 PM
                Have you heard of Transmeta?David Kanter11/19/12 03:47 PM
            New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitbakaneko11/19/12 09:08 AM
            New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitDavid Kanter11/19/12 03:40 PM
              Semantic Dictionary EncodingRay11/19/12 10:37 PM
              New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitRohit11/20/12 04:48 PM
                New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitDavid Kanter11/20/12 11:07 PM
                  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitWilco11/21/12 06:41 AM
                    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitDavid Kanter11/21/12 10:12 AM
                    A JIT exampleMark Roulo11/21/12 10:30 AM
                      A JIT exampleWilco11/21/12 07:04 PM
                        A JIT examplerwessel11/21/12 09:05 PM
                        A JIT exampleGabriele Svelto11/23/12 03:53 AM
                        A JIT exampleEduardoS11/23/12 10:13 AM
                          A JIT exampleWilco11/23/12 01:41 PM
                            A JIT exampleEduardoS11/23/12 02:06 PM
                            A JIT exampleGabriele Svelto11/23/12 04:09 PM
                              A JIT exampleSymmetry11/26/12 05:58 AM
            New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitRay11/19/12 10:27 PM
    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitDavid Kanter08/14/12 09:11 AM
  v7-M is Thumb-onlyPaul A. Clayton08/14/12 06:58 AM
  Minor suggested correctionPaul A. Clayton08/14/12 08:33 AM
    Minor suggested correctionanon08/14/12 08:57 AM
  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitExophase08/14/12 08:33 AM
    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitDavid Kanter08/14/12 09:16 AM
      New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitjigal08/15/12 01:49 PM
  Correction re ARM and BBC MicroPaul08/14/12 08:59 PM
    Correction re ARM and BBC MicroPer Hesselgren08/15/12 03:27 AM
  Memory BW so lowPer Hesselgren08/15/12 03:14 AM
    Memory BW so lownone08/15/12 11:16 AM
  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitdado08/15/12 10:25 AM
  Number of GPRsKenneth Jonsson08/16/12 02:35 PM
    Number of GPRsExophase08/16/12 02:52 PM
      Number of GPRsKenneth Jonsson08/17/12 02:41 AM
        Ooops, missing link...Kenneth Jonsson08/17/12 02:44 AM
        64-bit pointers eat some performancePaul A. Clayton08/17/12 06:19 AM
          64-bit pointers eat some performancebakaneko08/17/12 08:37 AM
            Brute force seems to workPaul A. Clayton08/17/12 10:08 AM
              Brute force seems to workbakaneko08/17/12 11:15 AM
          64-bit pointers eat some performanceRichard Cownie08/17/12 08:46 AM
            Pointer compression is atypicalPaul A. Clayton08/17/12 10:43 AM
              Pointer compression is atypicalRichard Cownie08/17/12 12:57 PM
                Pointer compression is atypicalHoward Chu08/22/12 10:17 PM
                  Pointer compression is atypicalRichard Cownie08/23/12 04:48 AM
                    Pointer compression is atypicalHoward Chu08/23/12 06:51 AM
              Pointer compression is atypicalWilco08/17/12 02:41 PM
                Pointer compression is atypicalRichard Cownie08/17/12 04:13 PM
                  Pointer compression is atypicalRicardo B08/19/12 10:44 AM
                  Pointer compression is atypicalHoward Chu08/22/12 10:08 PM
                    Unified libraries?Paul A. Clayton08/23/12 07:49 AM
                    Pointer compression is atypicalRichard Cownie08/23/12 08:44 AM
                      Pointer compression is atypicalHoward Chu08/23/12 05:17 PM
                        Pointer compression is atypicalanon08/23/12 08:15 PM
                          Pointer compression is atypicalHoward Chu08/23/12 09:33 PM
            64-bit pointers eat some performanceFoo_08/18/12 12:09 PM
              64-bit pointers eat some performanceRichard Cownie08/18/12 05:25 PM
                64-bit pointers eat some performanceRichard Cownie08/18/12 05:32 PM
            Page-related benefit of small pointersPaul A. Clayton08/23/12 08:36 AM
        Number of GPRsWilco08/17/12 06:31 AM
          Number of GPRsKenneth Jonsson08/17/12 11:54 AM
            Number of GPRsExophase08/17/12 12:44 PM
              Number of GPRsKenneth Jonsson08/17/12 01:22 PM
                Number of GPRsWilco08/17/12 02:53 PM
        What about dynamic utilization?Exophase08/17/12 09:30 AM
          Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge?Paul A. Clayton08/17/12 10:20 AM
            Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge?Exophase08/17/12 11:09 AM
            Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge?anon08/18/12 02:23 AM
              Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge?Ricardo B08/19/12 11:02 AM
                Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge?anon08/19/12 06:07 PM
                  Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge?Ricardo B08/19/12 07:26 PM
                    Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge?anon08/19/12 10:03 PM
                      Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge?anon08/20/12 01:59 AM
        Number of GPRsDavid Kanter08/17/12 12:46 PM
          RAT issues as part of reason 1Paul A. Clayton08/17/12 02:18 PM
        Number of GPRsname9911/17/12 06:37 PM
          Large ARFs increase renaming costPaul A. Clayton11/17/12 09:23 PM
    Number of GPRsDavid Kanter08/16/12 03:31 PM
    Number of GPRsRichard Cownie08/16/12 05:17 PM
    32 GPRs ~2-3%Paul A. Clayton08/16/12 06:27 PM
      Oops, Message-ID: aaed6e38-c7bd-467e-ba41-f40cf1020e5e@googlegroups.com (NT)Paul A. Clayton08/16/12 06:29 PM
      32 GPRs ~2-3%Exophase08/16/12 10:06 PM
        R31 as SP/zero is kind of neat (NT)Paul A. Clayton08/17/12 06:23 AM
        32 GPRs ~2-3%rwessel08/17/12 08:24 AM
          32 GPRs ~2-3%Exophase08/17/12 09:16 AM
            32 GPRs ~2-3%Max08/17/12 04:19 PM
      32 GPRs ~2-3%name9911/17/12 07:43 PM
    Number of GPRsmpx08/17/12 01:11 AM
      Latency and powerPaul A. Clayton08/17/12 06:54 AM
    Number of GPRsbakaneko08/17/12 03:09 AM
  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitSteve08/17/12 02:12 PM
    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitDavid Kanter08/19/12 12:42 PM
      New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitDoug S08/19/12 02:02 PM
      New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitAnon08/19/12 07:16 PM
      New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitSteve08/30/12 07:51 AM
  Scalar vs Vector registersRobert David Graham08/19/12 05:19 PM
    Scalar vs Vector registersDavid Kanter08/19/12 05:29 PM
  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitBaserock ARM servers08/21/12 04:13 PM
    Baserock ARM serversSysanon08/21/12 04:14 PM
    A-15 virtualization and LPAE?Paul A. Clayton08/21/12 06:13 PM
      A-15 virtualization and LPAE?Anon08/21/12 07:13 PM
        Half-depth advantages?Paul A. Clayton08/21/12 08:42 PM
          Half-depth advantages?Anon08/22/12 03:33 PM
            Thanks for the information (NT)Paul A. Clayton08/22/12 04:04 PM
      A-15 virtualization and LPAE?C. Ladisch08/23/12 11:12 AM
        A-15 virtualization and LPAE?Paul08/23/12 03:17 PM
        Excessive pessimismPaul A. Clayton08/23/12 04:08 PM
          Excessive pessimismDavid Kanter08/23/12 05:05 PM
    New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitMichael S08/22/12 07:12 AM
      BTW, Baserock==product, Codethink==company (NT)Paul A. Clayton08/22/12 08:56 AM
  New Article: ARM Goes 64-bitReinoud Zandijk08/21/12 11:27 PM
Reply to this Topic
Name:
Email:
Topic:
Body: No Text
How do you spell blue?